You could say the same thing about abiogenesis. "I don't know how it could have happened except at random, just one of those 1 in 10^9218891287491824 chance that everything falls into place at random."
Except that no one seriously uses this argument.
I'd like to see someone try and compute the odds of life starting at random. Check this out, I googled for this: The Odds
Yes, I've seen creationist calculations of "the odds of life forming". They always assume that a chain of molecules must fall into place simultaneously in a single specific order. The problems with that reasoning are that there's no reason that the molecules could slowly build up over time (since the chemical properties would create bonds even if they weren't all together at once) and there's more than one possible viable configuration. Creationists ignore those two facts so that they can create a bogus statistic to "prove" the impossibility of abiogenesis, without ever mentioning that their premises are bogus because the real required quantities are unknowns to begin with.
I referenced a book. There are many other books on the subject. I've read that one in particular, it was interesting but what I really got from the book was the vastness of unanswered questions on the subject.
You referenced it, but you didn't explain why you personally found "primoridal goo" to be lacking. That's what I wanted to know.
By the way, I've never heard of the discovery institute.
It's not my problem that you're not educated in the founders of the current "Intelligent Design as science" movement.
Intelligent Design has been around for centuries, wasn't it Thomas Aquainas who first rationalized it?
I've seen Aquinas's arguments. They're not scientific either.
Plato also talked about it in Timaeus, but both philosphers were referring to a universal creator, here we're talking about the design of life forms, Plato knew nothing about DNA, Aquinas came closer to what we're talking about, however he had no understanding of life's intricacies either.
And neither of these people are part of the current ID movement, who say that "life is too complex to have evolved on its own, so it must have been designed" and trying to push off that logical fallacy as science. Please stop tossing up red herrings.
I have been reading these posts for about an hour now and am largely disppointed by the widespread misunderstanding that abound "in both camps".
I've noticed that those on the side of evolution who aren't as educated tend to know that they aren't as educated, while the ignorant ones on the creationist side somehow think themselves experts who, despite never having had a high-level biology course in their life, are able to somehow dispute over 150 years of research and discovery in the field.
I am a creationist, and, I hope, a thinking man as well.
It's been my experience that those are mutually exclusive traits. But let's see how you fare.
Personally, I see too much left unexplained by evolution for this to be the complete answer.
Examples please?
Does this just mean that science just hasn't had enough time to develop answers for everything? Perhaps.
No one claims that science has developed answers for everything. Do you have any more strawmen that you would like to knock down?
This topic seems to strike a nerve among many people, a topic that is as polarizing as any I've seen.
Well, yes. On one side you've got creationists who are aghast that observations of reality contradict their religious beliefs, and on the other side you have actual people of integrity who are shocked at the depths of dishonesty to which creationists will sink to "prove" a pointl dishonesty such as blatant misrepresentation of scientific principles (why do so many idiots still trot out the Second Law of Thermodynamics as though it somehow disproves evolution), out-of-context mined quotes (claiming that Darwin believed his work on evolution was a "phantasy" or that he personally couldn't understand how an eye could evolve, vicious and unjustified lies about the alleged consequences of evolution (I've been told that evolution is responsible for Nazism, communism, legalized abortion and more) and a host of other fabrications and misrepresentations.
Aside from the ever-useful and edifying ad hominem attacks towards Christians,
A common trait amongst creationists is an incredible arrogance. You are utterly unable to consider that it really isn't all about you or your religion. Believe it or not, the majority of people who accept evolution do so because the facts point toward it, not because they're trying to destroy Christianity. It's not an active attack against your religious beliefs. The sooner you drop your paranoia and understand that, the sooner you'll take a step toward having some level of credibility.
Your religion isn't the only one out there. Constructing a delusion of persecution against your religion specifically just because you don't like the implications of a biological theory doesn't help your case.
evolutionists might be wise to investigate some of these scientifically sound claims that are being made by bona fide *smart people* of science.
Actually, the only people really qualified are those with a scientific background. Specifically, a background in a biological or life science. You have too many idiots willing to take the word of a trial lawyer when it comes to evolution, and as a result we have a good number of bullshit arguments being parroted out because so many creationists can't understand that a law degree does not confer expertise in the field of biology.
Personally, I'm not afraid to look evolution square in the eye, kick the tires, take it around the block once or twice, and still not buy into it because of evidence that I see that brings doubt to evolution.
So let's examine the "evidence that you see that brings doubt to evolution".
Things like: Evolution from lower life forms indicates an increase of genetic material from the lower form to a higher. Sure, dogs are bred to weed out undesirable traits and to accentuate desirable ones, yet this is still a dog. In 100,000 years of breeding, I'm not goin
I don't hear anything about religion in their wording. It appears as though they are careful not to introduce religion.
Indeed, the charlitans who invented the concept of "ID" are careful to avoid mentioning religion lest they expose their real agenda.
I find it strange that people make such a huff about this. Abiogenesis is an extremely raw topic, and right now I think Intelligent Design is just about the ONLY theory that makes sense.
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It fails to meet the basic requirements for "theory". Intelligent Design is simply stating "I don't know how it could have happened without design, so it must have been designed". That's not science, that's the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Creationists (ID pushers are creationists in disguise) don't actually have any actual science and you'll find that a good number of their "arguments" are actually nothing more than logical fallacies at the core.
Primordial goo doesn't make much sense to me, and the research is really incomplete on the primordial goo hypothesis.
Got something more substantial than just saying that you don't understand it?
So what? The most widely accepted theory in science many years ago was that the world was flat.
"The world is flat" is not a theory, nor is "the world is round". A theory is an explanation for observed phenomenon, not a description of a single entity.
If you don't understand the basic terminology, then you have no credibility in the discussion.
Re:5.0 is a double edged sword.
on
Cedega 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
However the negitives to it is that it completely kills the use of Point2Play which I enjoyed using.
That's nothing. Anyone who used command-line only -- like me -- is now totally screwed. EVERYTHING I had set up previously was hosed, and it was a nightmare trying to get things to a mere semblance of how they behaved before.
I want an app where I can go to the command line and run cedega with just a reference to the executable file and have it work (if the file can work at all with cedega/wine). I could do that up until 5. Now I have to configure settings in the GUI for ANY DAMNED EXECUTABLE THAT I WANT TO RUN! I have to jump through hoops just to run a one-time use hotfix patch exe file. I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT MUCH SHIT IN WINDOWS!
So I'm back to 4.4.3 until and unless Transgaming returns a proper interface to command-line users.
2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
A common creationist canard that takes a total misrepresentation of the Second Law that fails to take into account that local entropy can decrease in an open system.
By creationist "logic", life itself is impossible because the development of a fetus from a zygote is "low order" going to "high order". But thinking was never a strong suit amongst creationists. And even those who have this explained to them repeat the false argument, because honesty is also not a strong suit.
Atheism is rarely forced on anyone, I do not know many atheists that go around trying to convert religious people.
Part of the problem is that many creationists irrationally redefine atheism to mean "anything that isn't completely consistent or compatable with my personal religious beliefs". This means that exposure to evolution is "atheism", even though there are a good number of theists who accept the theory of evolution.
The key to understanding is to treat anything that a creationist says in support of their position as a lie. That's usually a good guideline.
Like I said before someone decided one day that the universe *was natural*, that's an idealogical statement not a scientific one.
No, it's a semantic distinction. Things entirely constrained within the universe are natural, including the universe itself. That is how "natural" is defined within the context of science, but because you want to play stupid solophistic games you pretend that there's some deeper conspiracy behind it. Trying to claim that there's no clear definition for "natural" by refusing to accept a given definition for "natural" only demonstrates that you're an idiot incapable of rational thought.
And as I've told you, I have. The concept is "Life seems to complex to have evolved through undirected processes, so an intelligent designer is responsible." That's a logical fallacy and should be dismissed as such. Not understanding how evolution could produce a particular system is not evidence for a designer. Even if I seperate out the undeniably dishonest foundation for ID, it's still a worthless concept.
Stop playing semantic games. The people who invented the "idea" of ID were being dishonest when they presented it as totally secular. They admitted that ID was an attempt to "wedge" in Biblical creationism. They were dishonest. The foundation of ID was an act of dishonesty.
I don't care what they think. Good scientists focus on ideas, not people's opinions.
And ID is a bad idea and has been discarded as such. It just so happens that the pushers of ID are inherently dishonest, and no amount of semantic whining will change that fact.
But once again "within the universe" explains nothing, it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of things within the universe (whatever "universe" means, since it is wholly dependent on our limited view of our environment), and that also doesn't tell us that whatever exists in the universe *is natural*. That's my point.
Except that whatever exists wholly and completely in the universe is natural by definition. It sounds like you don't like the given definition, so you're arguing that it should be something else. It's not. Too bad.
That's my point. Christians view natural laws as extensions of god,
But natural laws can be observed independent of any deities. If a deity is ever required to explain the fundamental mechanism behind a natural law, then it will never be explained further. That's how science operates. You're playing a semantic game because you don't like the constraints of science, and I'm not falling for it.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist."
I do, because this implies fundamentally incorrect things about scientific laws and theories. Theories are never proven. Suggesting that a theory could somehow become proven and be law is dishonest. Laws are also not proven; they are simply a different type of statement in a science. Theories do not become Laws because Laws and Theories serve different purposes.
There's also the fact that no one is pushing for a disclaimer sticker for any other scientific theory, such as relativity theory, germ theory or atomic theory. Makes me question the motives of those pushing for evolution disclaimers.
Appeal to popularity does not necessarily mean stating that the popularity of a belief is proof of its validity. Suggesting that a belief may be wortwhile to investigage because it is popular is also fallacious. Moreover, that only addresses part of my objection; there's also the vast differences between the nature of "higher beings" worshipped and/or acknowledged by various religions, but that has to be glossed over to get the "everyone believes this" argument.
Most versions of ID do *not* depend on a superatural creator.
You said "But we could reverse it and say that just because it is proven that God created life on Earth", and I was referring specifically to that, no ID.
I disagreed and gave some examples.
No, you didn't. You made an argument regarding direct observation of natural selection producing an eye, but such an observation would not prove that the eyes of all existing organisms were not created by an intelligent designer. That's my point -- showing that evolution is possible does not disprove ID, because someone could still say that the designer made life in a configuration identical to organisms that could have evolved on their own.
Besides, hypothesis considered "scientific", such as Multiple Universes of the Anthropic Principle currently have no known falsifiable paths either.
The Anthropic Principle isn't science. Multiple Universes is speculative hypothesis. I'm talking about scientific theories, not hypothesis. Theories must be falsifiable. ID is not falsifiable, so the only reasons for claiming it to be theory are dishonesty or ignorance.
When just about every culture has a creation myth, doesn't that mean that evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence might be worth exploring?
No. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, and even that's a force-fit because the supernatural entities of various religions are often vastly different.
Ideas aren't necessarily with merit simply because a lot of people throughout history believed them.
I'd like to know who decided the universe is natural, it certianly wasn't done scientifically, it was done idealogically.
Anything constrained entirely within the universe (including the universe itself) is natural by definition. Supernatural refers to entities in whole or in part outside of the natural universe and exempt from at least some of the properties of the universe.
I don't see why the agenda or bias of people should be an issue when evaluating an idea.
Because the very foundation of the idea is a fundamentally dishonest premise to push a dishonest agenda. There's also the fact that the idea is poorly-defined to begin with -- you can't honestly evaluate an idea when the supporters of the idea won't give you full details on what it is supposed to be. Don't believe me? Ask any professional ID-pusher what, exactly, they would have taught under "Intelligent Design" theory in a science classroom. You won't get an answer, because they don't have one. Intelligent Design is nothing more than the assertion "I don't understand how evolution could have occured, therefore life was designed". That's not an idea with merit, that's the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, and much of the "supporting evidence" behind the "I don't understand" claim is mired in scientific ignorance rather than actual limitations of understanding within the field of biology.
But we could reverse it and say that just because it is proven that God created life on Earth that it does not rule evolution working on *another* planet.
While your example is absurd because supernatural premises cannot be a part of science, you're ignoring that the theory of evolution is about common descent of life on Earth through natural selection, mutation and a few other criteria. There are existing falsification scenarios for that theory which, if discovered, would show that the theory of common descent of life on earth is false.
There is absolutely no hypothetical observation that could be made to show that life was not intelligently designed. None. Showing that life can evolve doesn't show that it did evolve and wasn't designed. That's why ID-pushers who claim that ID is a scientific theory are either fundamentally ignorant about the nature of science itself or they are lying.
Science should be about testing ideas, not testing people.
ID can't be tested. It's a fundamentally worthless bit of supposition. Moreover, the history of the ID movement makes it very clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to "wedge" in Biblical creationism (yes, the founders of the ID "movement" are literalal-Bible creationists); it was created by trying to dress up the Genesis account by removing supernatural elements and elements that would otherwise specifically identify it source and by cobbling together a collection of bad arguments against evolution. That is it. It's not based upon actual research or observation, it started solely as an attempt to push a religious agenda. That's not how proper science is done.
What if the Darwin Clan of Human Selection started a religion that worshipped apes and activitly lobbied to make sure evolution was taught in schools (not merely in the books). Would the existence of such a religious group make evolution any less true or less scientific?
No more than the existence of Pythagorians make math a religion. The problem here is that the religious worshippers invented ID as a means of pushing their agenda, they didn't just co-opt an existing idea of ID to do it.
and it could drop in rank by showing an observable example of natural selection turning something simple into something complex before the eyes and cameras of many observers.
How would this actually falsify ID? How would showing that an eye could come about through natural selection demonstrate that life forms weren't designed?
Maybe because how the world came about has no relation to 80% of modern science (chem, physics, and molecular/cellular level bio)?
Are you saying that existing hypothesis on how the world came about don't actually tie into the fundamentals of chemistry or physics (biology doesn't enter into it until you start looking at the first life forms)? If so, you're woefully out of touch with reality.
While there is definately disagreement in the area of ID, we can at least teach the facts everyone agrees on (I haven't heard many religious challenges to F=ma, Maxwell's equations, Bohr's model of the atom, or microbiology recently).
So we should limit science to nothing but equations, and ignore things that might offend people's religious sensibilities, no matter how solid the evidence is for them?
And how does this make creationism scientific? That was my question, why did you completely ignore it?
Why doesn't slashdot just create one article titled "People that believe in God are stupid" and have all ID discussion there?
It just isn't a creation/evolution discussion without one dishonest creationist falsely linking acceptance of evolution with atheism.
Creationism/ID can't win on intellectual merits, so they have to resort to lying. Lying about what they are, lying about what evolution is and lying about what people who accept evolution believe and do not believe. The entire movement is founded upon lies.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks. This is one of the many repeated canards of evolution.
Citation?
What would it take to falsify evolution in your mind?
Precambrian rabbit fossils.
Transposons found in whales and cows but not in hippos.
You could say the same thing about abiogenesis. "I don't know how it could have happened except at random, just one of those 1 in 10^9218891287491824 chance that everything falls into place at random."
Except that no one seriously uses this argument.
I'd like to see someone try and compute the odds of life starting at random. Check this out, I googled for this: The Odds
Yes, I've seen creationist calculations of "the odds of life forming". They always assume that a chain of molecules must fall into place simultaneously in a single specific order. The problems with that reasoning are that there's no reason that the molecules could slowly build up over time (since the chemical properties would create bonds even if they weren't all together at once) and there's more than one possible viable configuration. Creationists ignore those two facts so that they can create a bogus statistic to "prove" the impossibility of abiogenesis, without ever mentioning that their premises are bogus because the real required quantities are unknowns to begin with.
I referenced a book. There are many other books on the subject. I've read that one in particular, it was interesting but what I really got from the book was the vastness of unanswered questions on the subject.
You referenced it, but you didn't explain why you personally found "primoridal goo" to be lacking. That's what I wanted to know.
By the way, I've never heard of the discovery institute.
It's not my problem that you're not educated in the founders of the current "Intelligent Design as science" movement.
Intelligent Design has been around for centuries, wasn't it Thomas Aquainas who first rationalized it?
I've seen Aquinas's arguments. They're not scientific either.
Plato also talked about it in Timaeus, but both philosphers were referring to a universal creator, here we're talking about the design of life forms, Plato knew nothing about DNA, Aquinas came closer to what we're talking about, however he had no understanding of life's intricacies either.
And neither of these people are part of the current ID movement, who say that "life is too complex to have evolved on its own, so it must have been designed" and trying to push off that logical fallacy as science. Please stop tossing up red herrings.
I have been reading these posts for about an hour now and am largely disppointed by the widespread misunderstanding that abound "in both camps".
I've noticed that those on the side of evolution who aren't as educated tend to know that they aren't as educated, while the ignorant ones on the creationist side somehow think themselves experts who, despite never having had a high-level biology course in their life, are able to somehow dispute over 150 years of research and discovery in the field.
I am a creationist, and, I hope, a thinking man as well.
It's been my experience that those are mutually exclusive traits. But let's see how you fare.
Personally, I see too much left unexplained by evolution for this to be the complete answer.
Examples please?
Does this just mean that science just hasn't had enough time to develop answers for everything? Perhaps.
No one claims that science has developed answers for everything. Do you have any more strawmen that you would like to knock down?
This topic seems to strike a nerve among many people, a topic that is as polarizing as any I've seen.
Well, yes. On one side you've got creationists who are aghast that observations of reality contradict their religious beliefs, and on the other side you have actual people of integrity who are shocked at the depths of dishonesty to which creationists will sink to "prove" a pointl dishonesty such as blatant misrepresentation of scientific principles (why do so many idiots still trot out the Second Law of Thermodynamics as though it somehow disproves evolution), out-of-context mined quotes (claiming that Darwin believed his work on evolution was a "phantasy" or that he personally couldn't understand how an eye could evolve, vicious and unjustified lies about the alleged consequences of evolution (I've been told that evolution is responsible for Nazism, communism, legalized abortion and more) and a host of other fabrications and misrepresentations.
Aside from the ever-useful and edifying ad hominem attacks towards Christians,
A common trait amongst creationists is an incredible arrogance. You are utterly unable to consider that it really isn't all about you or your religion. Believe it or not, the majority of people who accept evolution do so because the facts point toward it, not because they're trying to destroy Christianity. It's not an active attack against your religious beliefs. The sooner you drop your paranoia and understand that, the sooner you'll take a step toward having some level of credibility.
Your religion isn't the only one out there. Constructing a delusion of persecution against your religion specifically just because you don't like the implications of a biological theory doesn't help your case.
evolutionists might be wise to investigate some of these scientifically sound claims that are being made by bona fide *smart people* of science.
Actually, the only people really qualified are those with a scientific background. Specifically, a background in a biological or life science. You have too many idiots willing to take the word of a trial lawyer when it comes to evolution, and as a result we have a good number of bullshit arguments being parroted out because so many creationists can't understand that a law degree does not confer expertise in the field of biology.
Personally, I'm not afraid to look evolution square in the eye, kick the tires, take it around the block once or twice, and still not buy into it because of evidence that I see that brings doubt to evolution.
So let's examine the "evidence that you see that brings doubt to evolution".
Things like:
Evolution from lower life forms indicates an increase of genetic material from the lower form to a higher. Sure, dogs are bred to weed out undesirable traits and to accentuate desirable ones, yet this is still a dog. In 100,000 years of breeding, I'm not goin
I don't hear anything about religion in their wording. It appears as though they are careful not to introduce religion.
Indeed, the charlitans who invented the concept of "ID" are careful to avoid mentioning religion lest they expose their real agenda.
I find it strange that people make such a huff about this. Abiogenesis is an extremely raw topic, and right now I think Intelligent Design is just about the ONLY theory that makes sense.
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It fails to meet the basic requirements for "theory". Intelligent Design is simply stating "I don't know how it could have happened without design, so it must have been designed". That's not science, that's the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Creationists (ID pushers are creationists in disguise) don't actually have any actual science and you'll find that a good number of their "arguments" are actually nothing more than logical fallacies at the core.
Primordial goo doesn't make much sense to me, and the research is really incomplete on the primordial goo hypothesis.
Got something more substantial than just saying that you don't understand it?
So what? The most widely accepted theory in science many years ago was that the world was flat.
"The world is flat" is not a theory, nor is "the world is round". A theory is an explanation for observed phenomenon, not a description of a single entity.
If you don't understand the basic terminology, then you have no credibility in the discussion.
However the negitives to it is that it completely kills the use of Point2Play which I enjoyed using.
That's nothing. Anyone who used command-line only -- like me -- is now totally screwed. EVERYTHING I had set up previously was hosed, and it was a nightmare trying to get things to a mere semblance of how they behaved before.
I want an app where I can go to the command line and run cedega with just a reference to the executable file and have it work (if the file can work at all with cedega/wine). I could do that up until 5. Now I have to configure settings in the GUI for ANY DAMNED EXECUTABLE THAT I WANT TO RUN! I have to jump through hoops just to run a one-time use hotfix patch exe file. I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT MUCH SHIT IN WINDOWS!
So I'm back to 4.4.3 until and unless Transgaming returns a proper interface to command-line users.
2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
A common creationist canard that takes a total misrepresentation of the Second Law that fails to take into account that local entropy can decrease in an open system.
By creationist "logic", life itself is impossible because the development of a fetus from a zygote is "low order" going to "high order". But thinking was never a strong suit amongst creationists. And even those who have this explained to them repeat the false argument, because honesty is also not a strong suit.
Atheism is rarely forced on anyone, I do not know many atheists that go around trying to convert religious people.
Part of the problem is that many creationists irrationally redefine atheism to mean "anything that isn't completely consistent or compatable with my personal religious beliefs". This means that exposure to evolution is "atheism", even though there are a good number of theists who accept the theory of evolution.
The key to understanding is to treat anything that a creationist says in support of their position as a lie. That's usually a good guideline.
Like I said before someone decided one day that the universe *was natural*, that's an idealogical statement not a scientific one.
No, it's a semantic distinction. Things entirely constrained within the universe are natural, including the universe itself. That is how "natural" is defined within the context of science, but because you want to play stupid solophistic games you pretend that there's some deeper conspiracy behind it. Trying to claim that there's no clear definition for "natural" by refusing to accept a given definition for "natural" only demonstrates that you're an idiot incapable of rational thought.
Look at the concept at face value.
And as I've told you, I have. The concept is "Life seems to complex to have evolved through undirected processes, so an intelligent designer is responsible." That's a logical fallacy and should be dismissed as such. Not understanding how evolution could produce a particular system is not evidence for a designer. Even if I seperate out the undeniably dishonest foundation for ID, it's still a worthless concept.
Ideas are not dishonest, people are.
Stop playing semantic games. The people who invented the "idea" of ID were being dishonest when they presented it as totally secular. They admitted that ID was an attempt to "wedge" in Biblical creationism. They were dishonest. The foundation of ID was an act of dishonesty.
I don't care what they think. Good scientists focus on ideas, not people's opinions.
And ID is a bad idea and has been discarded as such. It just so happens that the pushers of ID are inherently dishonest, and no amount of semantic whining will change that fact.
But once again "within the universe" explains nothing, it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of things within the universe (whatever "universe" means, since it is wholly dependent on our limited view of our environment), and that also doesn't tell us that whatever exists in the universe *is natural*. That's my point.
Except that whatever exists wholly and completely in the universe is natural by definition. It sounds like you don't like the given definition, so you're arguing that it should be something else. It's not. Too bad.
That's my point. Christians view natural laws as extensions of god,
But natural laws can be observed independent of any deities. If a deity is ever required to explain the fundamental mechanism behind a natural law, then it will never be explained further. That's how science operates. You're playing a semantic game because you don't like the constraints of science, and I'm not falling for it.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist."
I do, because this implies fundamentally incorrect things about scientific laws and theories. Theories are never proven. Suggesting that a theory could somehow become proven and be law is dishonest. Laws are also not proven; they are simply a different type of statement in a science. Theories do not become Laws because Laws and Theories serve different purposes.
There's also the fact that no one is pushing for a disclaimer sticker for any other scientific theory, such as relativity theory, germ theory or atomic theory. Makes me question the motives of those pushing for evolution disclaimers.
If it is, I don't see it.
Appeal to popularity does not necessarily mean stating that the popularity of a belief is proof of its validity. Suggesting that a belief may be wortwhile to investigage because it is popular is also fallacious. Moreover, that only addresses part of my objection; there's also the vast differences between the nature of "higher beings" worshipped and/or acknowledged by various religions, but that has to be glossed over to get the "everyone believes this" argument.
Most versions of ID do *not* depend on a superatural creator.
You said "But we could reverse it and say that just because it is proven that God created life on Earth", and I was referring specifically to that, no ID.
I disagreed and gave some examples.
No, you didn't. You made an argument regarding direct observation of natural selection producing an eye, but such an observation would not prove that the eyes of all existing organisms were not created by an intelligent designer. That's my point -- showing that evolution is possible does not disprove ID, because someone could still say that the designer made life in a configuration identical to organisms that could have evolved on their own.
Besides, hypothesis considered "scientific", such as Multiple Universes of the Anthropic Principle currently have no known falsifiable paths either.
The Anthropic Principle isn't science. Multiple Universes is speculative hypothesis. I'm talking about scientific theories, not hypothesis. Theories must be falsifiable. ID is not falsifiable, so the only reasons for claiming it to be theory are dishonesty or ignorance.
When just about every culture has a creation myth, doesn't that mean that evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence might be worth exploring?
No. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, and even that's a force-fit because the supernatural entities of various religions are often vastly different.
Ideas aren't necessarily with merit simply because a lot of people throughout history believed them.
I'd like to know who decided the universe is natural, it certianly wasn't done scientifically, it was done idealogically.
Anything constrained entirely within the universe (including the universe itself) is natural by definition. Supernatural refers to entities in whole or in part outside of the natural universe and exempt from at least some of the properties of the universe.
I don't see why the agenda or bias of people should be an issue when evaluating an idea.
Because the very foundation of the idea is a fundamentally dishonest premise to push a dishonest agenda. There's also the fact that the idea is poorly-defined to begin with -- you can't honestly evaluate an idea when the supporters of the idea won't give you full details on what it is supposed to be. Don't believe me? Ask any professional ID-pusher what, exactly, they would have taught under "Intelligent Design" theory in a science classroom. You won't get an answer, because they don't have one. Intelligent Design is nothing more than the assertion "I don't understand how evolution could have occured, therefore life was designed". That's not an idea with merit, that's the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, and much of the "supporting evidence" behind the "I don't understand" claim is mired in scientific ignorance rather than actual limitations of understanding within the field of biology.
But we could reverse it and say that just because it is proven that God created life on Earth that it does not rule evolution working on *another* planet.
While your example is absurd because supernatural premises cannot be a part of science, you're ignoring that the theory of evolution is about common descent of life on Earth through natural selection, mutation and a few other criteria. There are existing falsification scenarios for that theory which, if discovered, would show that the theory of common descent of life on earth is false.
There is absolutely no hypothetical observation that could be made to show that life was not intelligently designed. None. Showing that life can evolve doesn't show that it did evolve and wasn't designed. That's why ID-pushers who claim that ID is a scientific theory are either fundamentally ignorant about the nature of science itself or they are lying.
My money is on the latter.
Science should be about testing ideas, not testing people.
ID can't be tested. It's a fundamentally worthless bit of supposition. Moreover, the history of the ID movement makes it very clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to "wedge" in Biblical creationism (yes, the founders of the ID "movement" are literalal-Bible creationists); it was created by trying to dress up the Genesis account by removing supernatural elements and elements that would otherwise specifically identify it source and by cobbling together a collection of bad arguments against evolution. That is it. It's not based upon actual research or observation, it started solely as an attempt to push a religious agenda. That's not how proper science is done.
What if the Darwin Clan of Human Selection started a religion that worshipped apes and activitly lobbied to make sure evolution was taught in schools (not merely in the books). Would the existence of such a religious group make evolution any less true or less scientific?
No more than the existence of Pythagorians make math a religion. The problem here is that the religious worshippers invented ID as a means of pushing their agenda, they didn't just co-opt an existing idea of ID to do it.
and it could drop in rank by showing an observable example of natural selection turning something simple into something complex before the eyes and cameras of many observers.
How would this actually falsify ID? How would showing that an eye could come about through natural selection demonstrate that life forms weren't designed?
Maybe because how the world came about has no relation to 80% of modern science (chem, physics, and molecular/cellular level bio)?
Are you saying that existing hypothesis on how the world came about don't actually tie into the fundamentals of chemistry or physics (biology doesn't enter into it until you start looking at the first life forms)? If so, you're woefully out of touch with reality.
While there is definately disagreement in the area of ID, we can at least teach the facts everyone agrees on (I haven't heard many religious challenges to F=ma, Maxwell's equations, Bohr's model of the atom, or microbiology recently).
So we should limit science to nothing but equations, and ignore things that might offend people's religious sensibilities, no matter how solid the evidence is for them?
And how does this make creationism scientific? That was my question, why did you completely ignore it?
My point being that if the attacks on ID depend on supernaturalness, then such may backfire in court.
Not when you can demonstrate that those pushing ID have an outspoken religious agenda.
Why doesn't slashdot just create one article titled "People that believe in God are stupid" and have all ID discussion there?
It just isn't a creation/evolution discussion without one dishonest creationist falsely linking acceptance of evolution with atheism.
Creationism/ID can't win on intellectual merits, so they have to resort to lying. Lying about what they are, lying about what evolution is and lying about what people who accept evolution believe and do not believe. The entire movement is founded upon lies.